FA+
Shop
God doesn't hate gays!
12 years ago
General
Ok, had a lot of friends who's family have tossed things involving the concept that God .. hates them for being gay. Now, as a Christian myself, nothing pisses me off more than God's word being mangled and misconstrued for their own personal gain or enforcing their ideals. Secondly, it makes us real Christians look bad. So here's a short rant, including bible references, as to why God doesn't hate gays, and those that say so are idiots. (Stick with it, it gets best near the end)
Any religion or religious belief where one believes that God doesn't or can stop loving a person, I believe is destined for Hell. You obviously don't get the idea of what God is, you don't get the point of what He asks of us, so I don't think you can "pass go" if you can't subscribe to the basic intention of the religion of origin. Just like I don't believe that you can praise God's name, give your tithe, donate to charity, preach his word, yet molest children/beat animals/constantly spread lies about people/steal/manipulate people (each without seeing anything wrong with it), and still get into heaven. I don't believe that you can personally believe that God withdraws His love from people (like the gays), and you still make it into heaven. You obviously don't get the biggest point of what God is, so you can't benefit from the other stuff you hold on to. Same thing for those that think only their religious sect or whatever can go to heaven. James 1:27 states "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to keep oneself from being polluted by the world, and to take care of orphans and widows in their distress." God looks at the heart of man, not what is on the outside.
As far as sin, what is your hang up on homosexuality? What makes you decide that it should get a special spotlight destined for damnation unless YOU whine, complain, or condemn it? All sin is the same, all of it is falling short of being perfect (and He knows and understands we CAN'T be perfect), all sin deserves the same treatment (from lying just once to stabbing babies), and all people are loved. Romans 3:23 states "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of the Lord"; also in 3:10 "no one is rightious, not even one!" Without His love and grace, the person judging and chastising another deserves just as much damnation as the person they accost. John 1:10 tells us "if we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us." Sin is not loved, but the sinner is. Where in the Bible in any translation does it directly say that homosexuality holds a special place in Hell, and deserves extra cruelty, and therefore it is your job to treat them like lesser people that God does not care about? "Treat everyone you meet with dignity, love your spiritual family, revere God, and respect the government" 1 Peter 2:17. It is your responsibility as Christians to show love and compassion to every living being, not to be a Pharisee and pass judgement on people. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Mathew 7:3).
Plain and simple, God is love, and His grace can over come whatever sin may be in a person's life, and he gives it freely. Man is faulty, we exist in sin and imperfection. A man who kills another man in anger is called a murderer, even if they just killed a person once 30 years ago. So is a person who has lied even once, is a lier; for the rest of their life. Now here is something for all those whose minds wont change on this subject: NO MAN HAS OR EVER WILL GET CLOSER TO HEAVEN BY TELLING ANOTHER THAT THEY ARE DAMNED, OR BY TREATING A SINNER LIKE THEY DESERVE LESS OF GOD!! In fact, I'm pretty sure that screws your chances. Christ made no mention or condemnation toward homosexuals, however, he made plenty of references about rich men and those praised by men having no chance for heaven. Why does no one talk and squak at those people huh? Mathew 19:23 "Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven." Also, in verse 24, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Mark 10 in the Message translation states "do you have any idea how difficult it is for those people who 'have it all' to enter God's kingdom?" Not once did he preach on homosexuals being condemned away from Heaven's light. In fact, to screw over many "haters" view on the Gospel's view on if homosexuality is a choice or not, here's a passage that will flip some tables. In Mathew chapter 19, Jesus is answering questions on when and if divorce is permissible and also on who would be better off not marrying a woman or not. To skip ahead a bit, he lists 3 types of men that are better off not to be married to women: “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)
To break down this terminology, "eunuchs made by themselves" are the priests and monks that forego a partner or marriage so that they can dedicate themselves to God more, "eunuchs made by others" refers to the traditionally thought castrated men that can not couple with women anyways, and the "eunuchs from birth" refers to those born without the attraction or desire towards women or those that can't be made to lay with a woman.... In other words, gays... Yes, the Bible, Jesus himself just said that you can be gay from birth. You're welcome XD. And i know American and the general "Christian" nation will say that's not what the words meant, but if u ask any old arabic or old world Mediterranean culture what that phrase means, it means homosexuals.
So is homosexuality a sin if you're born to it?... No, plain and simple. The original condemnation from the church arose from the greater tendency of homosexuals to commit adultery, or sex outside of marriage (hmm... Seems if ya just allowed gays to get married in the first place, then you could reduce the adultery factor couldn't ya, ya jerks).
Now, for your final attention, don't use this verse. Grabbing a small piece of a book, especially arguing about a book that u haven't even read half of, is retarded. If ya wanna use this against haters, then read more... Not cliff notes, not segments from the internet, not a book about the Bible.... but read the real thing! Then you may be sturdy enough to hold up your end of the argument. Otherwise, you would get crushed by them flinging other verses at you. Ya need to know the big picture before you can understand enough to argue back with some strong footing.
Anyways, there's my too cents. I'm a Christian, I am extremely weary of how true Christianity is attacked by the gay or fur or liberal community, based on the actions of those that "think" they are, and call themselves Christians. True Christianity is Love, but like every community, it's the dipshit, antisocial, introverted, hateful, and embarousing ones that sneak in and call themselves part of the community, that are the ones most noticed.
P.S. To toss this in here since it was brought up in a comment, and to make it more whole:
According to a couple Rabbis and different texts refering to terminology of the ancient Newish world, the "born eunuchs" would not refer to just being born without testicals (cuz like today, it would be exceptionally rare), and traditionally, hemaphrodites (also extremely rare for ones to be considered male and not just a female with an enlarged clitoris) would have been treated as females and not refered to as male enuches. In the ancient jewish world, (see the Talmud) "born" and "natural" eunuchs had nothing to do with the presence or abcence of testicals, but was more associated with them being effeminate, as well as there being a potential to "cure" them. More over, eunuchs traditionally are considered a focal point of homosexual desire and activity (since they can't bed women, they look elsewhere to feed a desire), so a "natural" eunuch just as easily refers to someone that has these homosexual tendacies naturally.
Any religion or religious belief where one believes that God doesn't or can stop loving a person, I believe is destined for Hell. You obviously don't get the idea of what God is, you don't get the point of what He asks of us, so I don't think you can "pass go" if you can't subscribe to the basic intention of the religion of origin. Just like I don't believe that you can praise God's name, give your tithe, donate to charity, preach his word, yet molest children/beat animals/constantly spread lies about people/steal/manipulate people (each without seeing anything wrong with it), and still get into heaven. I don't believe that you can personally believe that God withdraws His love from people (like the gays), and you still make it into heaven. You obviously don't get the biggest point of what God is, so you can't benefit from the other stuff you hold on to. Same thing for those that think only their religious sect or whatever can go to heaven. James 1:27 states "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to keep oneself from being polluted by the world, and to take care of orphans and widows in their distress." God looks at the heart of man, not what is on the outside.
As far as sin, what is your hang up on homosexuality? What makes you decide that it should get a special spotlight destined for damnation unless YOU whine, complain, or condemn it? All sin is the same, all of it is falling short of being perfect (and He knows and understands we CAN'T be perfect), all sin deserves the same treatment (from lying just once to stabbing babies), and all people are loved. Romans 3:23 states "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of the Lord"; also in 3:10 "no one is rightious, not even one!" Without His love and grace, the person judging and chastising another deserves just as much damnation as the person they accost. John 1:10 tells us "if we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us." Sin is not loved, but the sinner is. Where in the Bible in any translation does it directly say that homosexuality holds a special place in Hell, and deserves extra cruelty, and therefore it is your job to treat them like lesser people that God does not care about? "Treat everyone you meet with dignity, love your spiritual family, revere God, and respect the government" 1 Peter 2:17. It is your responsibility as Christians to show love and compassion to every living being, not to be a Pharisee and pass judgement on people. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Mathew 7:3).
Plain and simple, God is love, and His grace can over come whatever sin may be in a person's life, and he gives it freely. Man is faulty, we exist in sin and imperfection. A man who kills another man in anger is called a murderer, even if they just killed a person once 30 years ago. So is a person who has lied even once, is a lier; for the rest of their life. Now here is something for all those whose minds wont change on this subject: NO MAN HAS OR EVER WILL GET CLOSER TO HEAVEN BY TELLING ANOTHER THAT THEY ARE DAMNED, OR BY TREATING A SINNER LIKE THEY DESERVE LESS OF GOD!! In fact, I'm pretty sure that screws your chances. Christ made no mention or condemnation toward homosexuals, however, he made plenty of references about rich men and those praised by men having no chance for heaven. Why does no one talk and squak at those people huh? Mathew 19:23 "Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven." Also, in verse 24, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Mark 10 in the Message translation states "do you have any idea how difficult it is for those people who 'have it all' to enter God's kingdom?" Not once did he preach on homosexuals being condemned away from Heaven's light. In fact, to screw over many "haters" view on the Gospel's view on if homosexuality is a choice or not, here's a passage that will flip some tables. In Mathew chapter 19, Jesus is answering questions on when and if divorce is permissible and also on who would be better off not marrying a woman or not. To skip ahead a bit, he lists 3 types of men that are better off not to be married to women: “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)
To break down this terminology, "eunuchs made by themselves" are the priests and monks that forego a partner or marriage so that they can dedicate themselves to God more, "eunuchs made by others" refers to the traditionally thought castrated men that can not couple with women anyways, and the "eunuchs from birth" refers to those born without the attraction or desire towards women or those that can't be made to lay with a woman.... In other words, gays... Yes, the Bible, Jesus himself just said that you can be gay from birth. You're welcome XD. And i know American and the general "Christian" nation will say that's not what the words meant, but if u ask any old arabic or old world Mediterranean culture what that phrase means, it means homosexuals.
So is homosexuality a sin if you're born to it?... No, plain and simple. The original condemnation from the church arose from the greater tendency of homosexuals to commit adultery, or sex outside of marriage (hmm... Seems if ya just allowed gays to get married in the first place, then you could reduce the adultery factor couldn't ya, ya jerks).
Now, for your final attention, don't use this verse. Grabbing a small piece of a book, especially arguing about a book that u haven't even read half of, is retarded. If ya wanna use this against haters, then read more... Not cliff notes, not segments from the internet, not a book about the Bible.... but read the real thing! Then you may be sturdy enough to hold up your end of the argument. Otherwise, you would get crushed by them flinging other verses at you. Ya need to know the big picture before you can understand enough to argue back with some strong footing.
Anyways, there's my too cents. I'm a Christian, I am extremely weary of how true Christianity is attacked by the gay or fur or liberal community, based on the actions of those that "think" they are, and call themselves Christians. True Christianity is Love, but like every community, it's the dipshit, antisocial, introverted, hateful, and embarousing ones that sneak in and call themselves part of the community, that are the ones most noticed.
P.S. To toss this in here since it was brought up in a comment, and to make it more whole:
According to a couple Rabbis and different texts refering to terminology of the ancient Newish world, the "born eunuchs" would not refer to just being born without testicals (cuz like today, it would be exceptionally rare), and traditionally, hemaphrodites (also extremely rare for ones to be considered male and not just a female with an enlarged clitoris) would have been treated as females and not refered to as male enuches. In the ancient jewish world, (see the Talmud) "born" and "natural" eunuchs had nothing to do with the presence or abcence of testicals, but was more associated with them being effeminate, as well as there being a potential to "cure" them. More over, eunuchs traditionally are considered a focal point of homosexual desire and activity (since they can't bed women, they look elsewhere to feed a desire), so a "natural" eunuch just as easily refers to someone that has these homosexual tendacies naturally.
As for the original point being made, I too am behind it. I only have one critique, and that is Matthew 19:11-12. "Eunuchs from birth" can also simply be a reference to hermaphrodites and people with deformities that limit them sexually.
I could go deeper into this in the form of a debate, but I don't think that was your intent, and it isn't really mine either. I just wanted to present another possibility.
I really appreciate your thoughts on the subject. They are very educated and well arranged. I'm happy to have another friend who is also Christian who understands the base principal that we are to love above all.
I personally have never been one to get too far into the "nature vs nurture" argument because to me it's rather irrelevant to Christianity's common take on the subject.
The phrase that I've heard probably a million times during my upbringing was "sin nature" which refers to how naturally sin comes to mankind. Just about every sin that we know of is observable in nature, so with that, I honestly can't understand why many of the people so dead set on using religion as a beatstick against gays are so afraid of the notion that homosexuality is natural. To me, it doesn't really change their argument at all.
Of course, to me, the Bible beaters have it wrong not because of what's sin and what isn't, but instead, because of their lack of understanding their role. "Christian" basically means Christ-like, which is a goal that was originally set by those who first began to adopt the name as a positive. If we are to be Christ like, then that means that we are to be the lover, the forgiver, and the mediator between sin and damnation. I think the problem nowadays with most Christians is that they instead are determined to be "God-like" (which falls in perfectly with a god-complex) and want to be the judge, jury, and the enforcer of death and damnation as the penalty for sin.
Again, you said it best whenever you referenced Mathew 7:3: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
Anywho. We may not agree on everything, but it's refreshing to know that you understand as do I as to why our agreement is not essential to anything.